The Mel Morris Interview

[Tyler Durden]

11 minutes ago, Rambalin said:

That's a fair enough answer if all 3 had committed a equal offence the problem was it was deemed one had not. 

Which offense(s) were unequal amongst the 3 protagonists?

My understanding was that 2 of them were found guilty of drink driving and the third was not found guilty of anything in a court of law? So the internal bias of punishments if anything should have been against the former two.

[California Ram.]

He’s one of us and not well. A sad read, but Derby fans are used to coming through the bad times and rising again. Hopefully he can recover fully and the Rams can keep him smiling. 

[ramit]

Get well soon Mel

[Curtains]

39 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Which offense(s) were unequal amongst the 3 protagonists?

My understanding was that 2 of them were found guilty of drink driving and the third was not found guilty of anything in a court of law? So the internal bias of punishments if anything should have been against the former two.

I don’t think Keogh had passed his driving test and relied on other players giving him lifts.  
 

Still don’t think he can drive. 
 

He was club Captain so should have known better. 
 

Bennett and Lawrence went to court for their punishments. 

[OUTSIDER]

Mel has made mistakes but he is Derby thro and thro , hope he succeeds in what he is trying to do and leave DCFC in good hands to who he paces the reigns to.

 

hope he gets  well and see him continue to be a part of Derby County for years to come 

[YouRams]

Deserves a lot of credit regardless of some of the questionable decisions he’s made, losing £200m of his own money and still sticking around to keep us afloat even with his ill health, hats off to Mel and get well soon. 

[DCFC1388]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Which offense(s) were unequal amongst the 3 protagonists?

My understanding was that 2 of them were found guilty of drink driving and the third was not found guilty of anything in a court of law? So the internal bias of punishments if anything should have been against the former two.

1 of them (Keogh) was unable to fulfill his playing contract due to the injury so how can his case be treated the same as the other 2? Also, we offered him a deal on reduced terms which given the fact he couldnt play due to his own stupidity was a fair thing for the club to do. I have no doubt if he could have played he would have been punished the same as the other 2 and had either of them suffered a long term injury they would have been dealt with the same as Keogh was. The fact 2 went to court has no bearing on how the club then punishes them.

So back to Mel, I have no issue with how he dealt with this situation at all.

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, DCFC1388 said:

1 of them (Keogh) was unable to fulfill his playing contract due to the injury so how can his case be treated the same as the other 2? Also, we offered him a deal on reduced terms which given the fact he couldnt play due to his own stupidity was a fair thing for the club to do. I have no doubt if he could have played he would have been punsished the same as rhe other 2 and had either of them suffered a long term injury they would have been dealt with the same as Keogh was. The fact 2 went to court has no bearing on how the club then punishes them.

So back to Mel, I have no issue with how he dealt with this situation at all.

This is going to get moved into the Richard Keogh thread at any rate so going to leave it here. 

I've said how I would have handled things differently which was the question posed by the OP which I've done to my satisfaction.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Hope Mel gets to be in a full Pride Park to hear a massive chorus of "he's one of our own" belted out. Would be sad if he was a pariffery figure by the time fans are back. 

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Hope Mel gets to be in a full Pride Park to hear a massive chorus of "he's one of our own" belted out. Would be sad if he was a pariffery figure by the time fans are back. 

You meant peripheral ?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

You meant peripheral ?

I did... What would I do without you Tyler 

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I did... What would I do without you Tyler 

I'll now get slagged for being part of the grammar police or spoiling the fun on this forum. Occupational hazard.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

1 minute ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'll now get slagged for being part of the grammar police or spoiling the fun on this forum. Occupational hazard.

Don't worry about it.... I don't. Thank you for the necessary correction. 

[kevinhectoring]

7 hours ago, RamNut said:

It seems to confirm what we assumed; deal signed, committing both parties, but the money hasn’t materialised. 

I don’t think it confirms this.  What it says is that a document was signed in October and that it gives rise to (unspecified) contractual obligations. That would have been an MOU or heads of terms. So far as I recall there has never been any suggestion from MM or anyone at the club that BZI was actually obliged by the October agreement to make payment 

But the DF says the parties are still ‘technically’ engaged in t/o negotiations. ‘Technically’, not ‘practically’ - the use of words strongly suggests the BZI deal won’t happen 

[Premier ram]

Mel Morris , quite simply One Of Our Own , get well soon Mel , a big thank you for all you have done and are doing for our wonderful club

[Tyler Durden]

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I don’t think it confirms this.  What it says is that a document was signed in October and that it gives rise to (unspecified) contractual obligations. That would have been an MOU or heads of terms. So far as I recall there has never been any suggestion from MM or anyone at the club that BZI was actually obliged by the October agreement to make payment 

But the DF says the parties are still ‘technically’ engaged in t/o negotiations. ‘Technically’, not ‘practically’ - the use of words strongly suggests the BZI deal won’t happen 

Wasn't the quote by Morris there's a contractual obligation to buy and a contractual obligation to sell in place?

What it doesn't say is what if any the penalty clauses would be if either side broke said contract.

I have to agree that the use of the word technically did ring alarm bells for me too as this would appear that dialogue is carrying on in name only with little hope of resolution.

 

[kevinhectoring]

28 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Wasn't the quote by Morris there's a contractual obligation to buy and a contractual obligation to sell in place?

It was. But what contract? The (floppy) Oct heads of terms? Or definitive documents that were signed later? I think it’s the former because no one has ever suggested anything was signed after October. Not even Wayne Rooney! 

As for Mm’s recourse if (if) there is a breach by BZI: he’s surely by now learning that suing and losing is stressful. And if he’s focused on a sale, he doesn’t advance that cause if he expends money and effort suing BZI. Anyway, I’d guess they have a covid related excuse for not proceeding 

[hintonsboots]

59 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I'll now get slagged for being part of the grammar police or spoiling the fun on this forum. Occupational hazard.

An occupational hazard.

[Ramslaar]

3 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Which offense(s) were unequal amongst the 3 protagonists?

My understanding was that 2 of them were found guilty of drink driving and the third was not found guilty of anything in a court of law? So the internal bias of punishments if anything should have been against the former two.

One could no longer complete his job for which was employed the other 2 could

[i-Ram]

3 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

Does it?

To me, it reeks of "Spending what he can afford on something he enjoys doing". 
OK, maybe that should be in the past tense now?  I truly don't know?

Some would spend their money on supercars, or yachts.... loose women... gee-gees... travelling the world, buying up hotels as they go.
The list is endless.  Particularly so for someone reputed to be worth £0.5 billion.

At worst, it may have been a gamble on Mel's part... HOPING it pays off financially (read "promotion"), but not overly worried (again, from a financial viewpoint) if it doesn't.

I don't see "losing".  I don't see "stupidity". 

In fairness, neither do I see bravery or heroicism. After all, he can/could afford it.  

I'm tempted to use the term "expensive hobby".

I'm just pleased for him that he got the opportunity to something he wanted to do, and will always be grateful for what he has achieved... and for what he tried to achieve.

?

Fair points my old Mucker. Hopefully he has enjoyed his expensive hobby. I will say no more given David’s earlier post. Sorry @Curtainswe can have our debate some other day.